Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 1933 2022 SLD 1933 2022 PLJ 476
Lahore High Court
Crl. A. Nos. 35447, 43773 47243 Crl. Rev. No. 47259 of2017, heard on 2.11.2021. hearing date: 2.11.2021.
MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ, J.
Mr. Mehram Ali Bali, Advocate for Appellant. (Riasat Ali)M/s. Mohsin Sheikh and Ahmed Raza, Advocates for Appellant. (Asif Ali).Mr. Sana Ullah, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.M/s. Falak Sher Bakhsh Gill and Qasim Ijaz Sumra, Advocates for Compl

RIASAT ALI and othersVSSTATE and others

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 302/148/149/109

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860)-- ----Ss. 302/148/149/109--Question appears whether injury to deceased was accidental as suggested by the defence or it was homicidal--Motive double edge weapon--Joint recovery--Acquittal of--Doctor/PW held autopsy on the dead body of deceased and observed injuries--Injury no.1. Contused swelling in an area of 20 cm x 30 cm on back of abdomen across the vertebral column, 6 cm from right iliac crust, 6 cm from mid line of buttock--On dissection of Injury No. 1, Large hematoma present with L2, L3, L4 vertebrae fractured and spinal cord damaged--Compression as in a fall on to feet from height may crush one or more vertebrae yet often involved with adjacent bony damage to vertebral body--Doctor has not explained how much damage was caused to spinal cord in this case--Vertebrae column is divided into four curves, which has its own response to the injuries as per Medical Jurisprudence depending upon nature of injury--Fall from a height on to the buttocks is also one of the causes of fracture of vertebral column; this has a matching sense with Injury No. 1 wherein contusions found near the area of right illiac crust and buttocks--Doctor has cited the weapon of offence as کندھ آلہ وتیز دھار آلہ in postmortem report yet nature of injuries described in the postmortem give somewhat different connotation--Thus, prosecution loses its limb of medical account to catch the offender with criminal liability, as such, the medical evidence is found to be contradicting the ocular account which cannot be relied upon--Draftsman who appeared as PW stated that he did not see any footprints of anybody on points Nos. 1, 23--The presence of claimed eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence could not be proved; therefore, their testimony cannot be considered as credible or trustworthy--Motive being double edged weapon cut both ways which is not helpful to the prosecution--Recovery of hatchets from the accused is of no use as were not blood stained--Panorama of prosecution case theory is not confidence inspiring--Recoveries being joint are inconsequential and motive being double edged weapon is of no help to the prosecution--Appeals are…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492